The Need For A Biden Doctrine
Addressing Biden's Foreign Policy Shortfalls
Two years ago, in the icy grasp of January, the world watched with curious eyes as Biden took the oath of the presidency, swearing atop a five-inch thick bible that had been in his family since 1893. Mr. Biden's subsequent inaugural address appealed to unity, resilience, and internationalism, proclaiming, “We will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again...[leading] not merely by the example of our power but by the power of our example.” Indeed, Mr. Biden's core foreign-policy argument was that his fifty years of Washington experience, friendships with world leaders, and liberal internationalism would be a "return to normalcy" compared to the America first foreign policy of Donald Trump.
Yet normalcy is never the state of foreign affairs; since assuming the Presidency, Mr. Biden has been confronted with a rising China, determined to dominate this century, an expansionist Russia, waging an unprovoked war of brutality against their neighbor, and an emboldened Iran, determined to procure weapons of mass destruction, eradicate Israel, and fundamentally transform the Middle East. Upon assuming the presidency, Mr. Biden outlined his goals for foreign policy. “Diplomacy is back at the center of our foreign policy,” Mr. Biden declared, “American leadership must meet this new moment of advancing authoritarianism, including the growing ambitions of China to rival the United States and the determination of Russia to damage and disrupt our democracy.”
The Biden administration’s foreign policy approach reveals a concerning pattern of miscalculations and inconsistent approaches. Two months after Mr. Biden assumed office, the United States and the rest of the world watched as satellite images showed the rapid and consistent deployment of Russian armor, artillery, and soldiers to the Ukrainian border. Mr. Biden spent the rest of 2021 cautioning Vladimir Putin against an attack against Ukraine, warning that the United States would impose “swift and severe costs against Russia.”
The reality is that the international community can only be led by the United States. Much of Europe, under the protective umbrella of the United States, has a defense approach that can best be described as complacent, if not outright negligent. These nations have diverted their funds disproportionately towards expensive domestic programs and are wary of involving themselves in American ventures, such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
It fell upon Mr. Biden to somehow unite this discombobulated group of nations, and to say he excelled at it would be an understatement. Mr. Biden’s efforts at modernizing and boosting NATO warrant bipartisan praise, he managed to galvanize Germany, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and the Netherland to meet their 2% of GDP spending commitments. Mr. Biden correctly “refocused” NATO at the last strategic alliance concept in 2010; Russia was characterized as a partner, and China was not even mentioned. Overseeing the ascension of Finland and Sweden, after threats against them from Mr. Putin, Mr. Biden reoriented NATO into the alliance against despots it was created as—a big change from his predecessor's comments that NATO was “obsolete.”
“Before the war started, I told Putin that if he invaded Ukraine, NATO would not only get stronger but would get more united, and he would see democracies in the world stand up and oppose his aggression and defend the rules-based order,” Mr. Biden stated. “And that's exactly what we're seeing today.” But unified European support for aiding Ukraine eroded quickly, leaving Mr. Biden and the United States to shoulder the bulk of training, arming, and supporting the Ukrainians.
Ultimately, this war was the culmination of strategic indecision after failing to provide lethal aid to Ukraine in the run-up to the invasion and instead relying on sanctions. The belief that sanctions would deter Mr. Putin was fallacious and naïve. Europe, being reliant on Russian energy, instead bought from neutral parties such as India, where Russian oil is refined and rerouted. Russia remains awash with cash and higher export prices. This, along with Mr. Biden's domestic moratorium on oil and gas leases, has left the only sanctioned party, the American consumer, who is forced to pay as much as $5 a gallon for gas.
In the Middle East, Mr. Biden’s team seemed content to ignore the region altogether. In Afghanistan, before Mr. Biden took office, President Trump managed to legitimize the illegitimate, securing a peace agreement with the Taliban based on the belief that the Taliban would partner with the West in fighting terrorism and never again harbor Al-Qaeda. The portrayal of the Taliban as a reformed criminal group was simultaneously deluded and dangerous. “We believe that the top leadership of Al Qaeda is still under Taliban protection,” said Edmund Fitton-Brown, head of a U.N. panel used for tracking terrorist groups. “There is still clearly a close relationship between Al Qaeda and the Taliban.”
Many observers wondered whether Mr. Biden would reverse this course that Mr. Trump had embarked upon. Mr. Biden instead doubled down on Mr. Trump's strategy, timing the withdrawal to coincide with the twentieth anniversary of 9/11 — purely for the sake of optics. This announcement caught Many NATO allies off-guard because they had not been consulted before this proclamation. The U.S. withdrawal was executed with a dismaying lack of planning. It unleashed a cascade of consequences that have manifested themselves all around the world: in Ukraine, in Israel, and potentially in the South China Sea.
Critics of the withdrawal, including myself, note that the modest number of personnel 2,500-3,500—focused on counterterrorism and intelligence operations—was sustainable and needed. Additionally, the Taliban offered to allow the United States to retain Bagram Airbase, positioned strategically between China and Iran. Unfortunately, the airbase was abandoned; the administration did not place any value on Bagram, as it likely did not align with their foreign policy strategies towards Beijing and Tehran. Also refused was the Taliban's offer to allow the U.S. to occupy Kabul during the withdrawal; the horrific consequence of this mistake was the loss of 13 Marines in a terrorist attack at the airport. The helicopters departed, leaving behind 7.12 billion dollars worth of equipment — a generous parting gift from the U.S. taxpayer for the Taliban.
Mr. Biden seemed too eager to conclude the withdrawal in time for the anniversary and to officially mark the ending of “America’s longest war.” Too many politicians find themselves railing against "endless wars.” This politically appealing simplification ignores the complexities of international security — both parties would do well to steer clear of it. As a result of the untimely departure, Afghani prisoners released by the Taliban included former members of terrorist groups, who are now free to join the global jihad against the West. Our allies were left with concerns about Washington's resolve, while our adversaries delighted at the humiliation and cowering retreat of the United States.
No one was more emboldened than the mullahs in Tehran, who rejoiced at the ousting of Mr. Trump. Having had their coffers dried by a brutal set of sanctions, a deadly blow dealt with Mr. Trump’s assassination of Qasem Soleimani, and civil unrest at home — one may have felt that Ayatollah Khamenei’s days in power were numbered. Instead, both Mr. Biden and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken seemed inclined to renegotiate the failed Iran nuclear deal, attempting to placate Iran with a laxity in enforcing oil sanctions and revoking the terrorist designation of the Houthi Rebels in Yemen, an Iranian proxy. Rather than bringing Iran to the negotiating table, this instead strengthened Iran's economy and allowed them to divert more revenue to sponsoring terrorism.
Any deal with Tehran will be ineffective in preventing their nuclear ambitions and instead would undermine the ability of the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel to maintain stability in the region. Frequently, these negotiations with Iran have provided extraordinarily generous benefits to Iran without any concessions from the regime. Appeasing Iran only weakens U.S. influence in the Middle East and leaves their aggression against Israel and Saudi Arabia unchecked and emboldened.
Iran has used the substantial revenue generated by waived oil sanctions, money transfers from the United States, and trade with China to fund and arm Hamas and Hezbollah for their attacks against Israel on October 7, 2023, to prevent a Saudi-Israeli normalization agreement. Mr. Biden, regrettably, isn’t able to project even a modicum of strength — Afghanistan eroded what credibility he previously possessed. Timid, in his television speeches, repeatedly fails to address Tehran’s responsibility for arming, training, and likely ordering this heinous and brutal war.
Fifty attacks have been carried out against U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria by Iranian-backed militias, and Mr. Biden's response has conspicuously lacked any strength or resolve. Should Mr. Biden wish to atone for Afghanistan, something he must do at some point, he should consider a strategic pivot. Instead of clumsy drone strikes against the militant proxies that Tehran already views as expendable, he should "cut the head off the snake" with military strikes against Iran itself. Tomahawk missile strikes against Iran's oil refineries, military installations, nuclear facilities, and infrastructure would send a strong message: do not attack the United States. Unfortunately, this is a fantasy, as Mr. Biden and his administration are too wary of escalating the conflict—even though American troops are under attack.
China has watched these debacles with the amusement of a spectator in a gladiator pit, and there can be no doubt that Beijing is weighing whether it can get away with a military action against Taiwan. Taiwan's role as one of the world’s leading producers of semiconductors and chips is crucial to the battle for the 21st century. The Biden administration has shown strategic insight in the Pacific, particularly with the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement, the military agreement that Mr. Biden brokered at Camp David between South Korea and Japan, and his historic partnership with Vietnam. However, Mr. Biden's limited successes in this theater are not enough to counterbalance the rightful grievances with his foreign policy.
Mr. Biden began his tenure with a call to reengage with the world, amplify the United States' positive example across the globe, and specifically iterating that the U.S. would not walk away from its international commitments. Yet, to truly honor his inaugural aspirations, Mr. Biden must shift his foreign policy approach. He must move beyond the reactive stance to be more proactive and assertive. Leveraging America's formidable capabilities and a credible threat of force has always worked to deter our adversaries.
As the President approaches the end of his term and potentially the beginning of his second, he must decide what strategic objectives are paramount and how to demonstrate an unwavering commitment to global stability and maintaining America's global influence. Without this, the U.S. risks leaving a hole in world leadership that China would love to fill.